Does Campaign Finance Reform encourage billionaires to run? (1 Viewer)

[Riversco]

I'm confused about the campaign finance reform laws. Can someone clarify how it works in this example?

Let's say Bernie Sanders is the democrat nominee. Bernie is not a billionaire. He is not super rich. He needs to raise money to run for president. According to CFR rules, he will be barred from using these funds 60 days prior to an election.

Donald Trump and Michael Bloomberg run for president. They don't bother with fundraising. They are multi billionaires. They will just spend $750 million of their own cash on their campaigns. Because they are using their own money, CFR rules do not apply. They are free to buy ads all over the place in the final 60 days of the election?

Is this correct? If so, doesn't CFR give billionaires an unfair advantage?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

You are wrong about the 60 day thing. You're right about self-funding being easier than raising money, but that advantage for billionaires isn't a consequence of any law, it's a result of a Supreme Court decision from 40 years ago.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Yes it does. The Clintons and Trump, Cruz and Sanders have made campaign finance reform irrelevant.

 

[timschochet]

Riversco I got your PM. Sorry I really have no idea.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Yes it does. The Clintons and Trump, Cruz and Sanders have made campaign finance reform irrelevant.

I don't know what this means.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Yes it does. The Clintons and Trump, Cruz and Sanders have made campaign finance reform irrelevant.

I don't know what this means.

The Clintons have proved that politicians can receive money from corporations outside the campaign and still run for office.

Sanders has raised money and competed with Hillary despite completely eschewing big money and corporate donors and PACs.

Cruz and Trump have spent the least in the GOP field and they are the two leaders.

Trump and the Clintons can self-finance, so can Bloomberg who might get in.

Meanwhile if we had spending limits, parties and candidates who would want to spend scads of money to oppose Trump and speak out against him would be limited from doing so.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Yes it does. The Clintons and Trump, Cruz and Sanders have made campaign finance reform irrelevant.

I don't know what this means.

The Clintons have proved that politicians can receive money from outside the campaign and still run for office.

Sanders has raised money and competed with Hillary despite completely eschewing big money and corporate donors and PACs.

Cruz and Trump have spent the least in the GOP field and they are the two leaders.

Trump and the Clintons can self-finance, so can Bloomberg who might get in.

Meanwhile if we had spending limits, parties and candidates who would want to spend scads of money to oppose Trump and speak out against him would be limited from doing so.

Spending limits were held unconstitutional back in the 70s. I'm still confused about whether you are talking about laws that already exist or laws that have been proposed. What Sanders has done is unprecedented. Cruz has not spent the least in the GOP field.

In any case, Riversco was operating under some bad assumptions.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Yes it does. The Clintons and Trump, Cruz and Sanders have made campaign finance reform irrelevant.

I don't know what this means.

The Clintons have proved that politicians can receive money from outside the campaign and still run for office.

Sanders has raised money and competed with Hillary despite completely eschewing big money and corporate donors and PACs.

Cruz and Trump have spent the least in the GOP field and they are the two leaders.

Trump and the Clintons can self-finance, so can Bloomberg who might get in.

Meanwhile if we had spending limits, parties and candidates who would want to spend scads of money to oppose Trump and speak out against him would be limited from doing so.

Spending limits were held unconstitutional back in the 70s. I'm still confused about whether you are talking about laws that already exist or laws that have been proposed. What Sanders has done is unprecedented. Cruz has not spent the least in the GOP field.

In any case, Riversco was operating under some bad assumptions.

Actually I agree the OP is muddled.

Sanders does not have to be unique, obviously technology allows a lot of possibilities that were not previously contemplated.

Yes I was throwing together Buckley v Valeo, C/U, and other proposals. My main point is that now or this summer/fall we should be cheering every PAC and non-profit that gathers together funds for every kind of commercial and ad that they can throw against Trump and I think there will indeed be a lot.

And if one of those non-profits or campaign groups runs an expose, documentary or long form ad on tv or in the movie theaters against Trump right before election day, I'm all for that too.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Let's say Bernie Sanders is the democrat nominee. Bernie is not a billionaire. He is not super rich. He needs to raise money to run for president. According to CFR rules, he will be barred from using these funds 60 days prior to an election.

Donald Trump and Michael Bloomberg run for president. They don't bother with fundraising. They are multi billionaires. They will just spend $750 million of their own cash on their campaigns. Because they are using their own money, CFR rules do not apply. They are free to buy ads all over the place in the final 60 days of the election?

It was McCain-Feingold that barred certain ads that explicitly supported (or opposed) candidates by name within 60 days of the general election. That aspect of the law was struck down by the Citizens United case.

 

[Fennis]

Neither Trump nor Bloomberg are going to spend $750 million of their own money.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

And if one of those non-profits or campaign groups runs an expose, documentary or long form ad on tv or in the movie theaters against Trump right before election day, I'm all for that too.

The First Amendment has benefits and drawbacks. The entertainment value of both the pro-Trump and anti-Trump propaganda I anticipate to come if he wins the nomination is a big positive, IMO.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Neither Trump nor Bloomberg are going to spend $750 million of their own money.

It's open question exactly what the hell Trump is doing.

Bloomberg I could see making a good faith effort to win the thing and collecting copiously from small and big donors alike.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Let's say Bernie Sanders is the democrat nominee. Bernie is not a billionaire. He is not super rich. He needs to raise money to run for president. According to CFR rules, he will be barred from using these funds 60 days prior to an election.

Donald Trump and Michael Bloomberg run for president. They don't bother with fundraising. They are multi billionaires. They will just spend $750 million of their own cash on their campaigns. Because they are using their own money, CFR rules do not apply. They are free to buy ads all over the place in the final 60 days of the election?

It was McCain-Feingold that barred certain ads explicitly supporting (or opposing) candidates by name within 60 days of the general election. That aspect of the law was struck down by the Citizens United case.

This isn't quite right either. The 60 day thing is about whether you can run certain types of ads funded by "soft money"--money that is not subject to campaign finance limits. If Bernie Sanders raises money from individual contributions under the limits, he can use that money for any ads at any time. Citizens United didn't actually strike down that law, it just created a separate avenue for "soft money" to be used so the 60 day thing doesn't really have much significance any more.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Neither Trump nor Bloomberg are going to spend $750 million of their own money.

News reports have indicated Bloomberg said he was willing to spend a billion.

 

[Fennis]

Neither Trump nor Bloomberg are going to spend $750 million of their own money.

News reports have indicated Bloomberg said he was willing to spend a billion.

I trust my own speculation more than those news reports.